David Niklas via Dng said on Tue, 2 Sep 2025 09:23:41 -0400

>On 09/01/2025(Mon) 21:10
>Steve Litt <slitt@???> wrote:
>> David Niklas via Dng said on Mon, 1 Sep 2025 19:22:43 -0400  
>> >On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 17:16:56 +0100
>> >ael <witwall3@???> wrote:    

>>

>> >In fact, Linus Torvalds himself said he did not want object oriented
>> >C++ code in the Linux Kernel. Now we're doing OO with rust!     

>>
>> I quote from the Google AI's answer to "is rust an oop language?"
><snip>
>AI is less that 50% accurate, study:
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/bbc-research-into-ai-assistants.pdf

OK fine, for sure, for sure. Your preceding sentence is a logical
fallacy, specifically, an Ad Hominem fallacy (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ). Just because less than 50%
of AI is accurate (if that's indeed true on questions as specific and
unambiguous as this) doesn't mean that Rust is an OOP language.

Also, in quoting me, you snipped the very relevant sentence:

========================================
I learned the rudiments of Rust a couple months ago, and the preceding
description matches my memory of Rust.
========================================

Leaving this out constitutes the logical fallacy of "fallacy of
incomplete evidence", otherwise known as "cherry picking" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking ).

Listen David, you might be right. Perhaps Rust doesn't belong in the
kernel. All I can tell you is the evidence you've presented so far is
unconvincing and fallacy ridden.

SteveT

Steve Litt

http://444domains.com